Fishery Bulletin 96 ( 1 ), 1998 
1 14 
portedly that of a tonguefish (see below), described 
by Lacepede. 
In their review of the flounders and soles of Eu- 
rope and America, Jordan and Goss (1889:324) com- 
pletely reversed the earlier position of Jordan regard- 
ing the status of the Linnaean holotype. Jordan and 
Goss disagreed with findings reported in Goode and 
Bean (1885a) and acknowledged that the tonguefish 
Garden had sent to Linnaeus probably originated 
from the United States, not from Africa or the Indian 
Ocean. Jordan and Goss used the new combination 
Symphurus plagiusa (Linnaeus) as the senior synonym 
for the common tonguefish species occurring in coastal 
waters of the United States and northern Mexico. Ad- 
ditionally, Jordan and Goss removed Achirus ornatus 
Lacepede from the synonymy of Symph urus plagiusa 
(Linnaeus) and indicated that it was doubtful to ascer- 
tain exactly as to what species the Lacepede descrip- 
tion applied (a position held herein as well). 
Following Jordan and Goss (1889), subsequent 
studies have continued to use Symphurus plagiusa 
(Linnaeus) as the senior synonym for the common, 
shallow-water, tonguefish of the eastern and Gulf of 
Mexico coasts of North America and northern Mexico. 
Although this name had wide application in studies 
published during the early and mid- 1900’s, identity 
and status of the holotype skin of Linnaeus’ species 
was never definitively settled. In his revision of west- 
ern North Atlantic tonguefishes, Ginsburg (1951:195) 
briefly addressed taxonomic and nomenclatural prob- 
lems associated with the holotype skin of Pleuronectes 
plagiusa Linnaeus. Ginsburg did not directly exam- 
ine the holotype skin but noted a disparity between 
measurements taken by Goode and Bean (1885a) on 
the holotype skin and those he had made on whole, 
preserved specimens. Ginsburg essentially agreed 
with Goode and Bean that, on the basis of measure- 
ments of the holotype skin of Pleuronectes plagiusa, 
this specimen did not appear to belong to the common 
American tonguefish species. He also stated that if the 
Linnaean name did not apply to the American species, 
then Plagusia fasciata DeKay was the next available 
name for this species. However, Ginsburg chose not to 
change prevailing nomenclature for this species because 
he believed that further study beyond his and Goode 
and Bean’s measurements was necessary to determine 
the identity of the holotype skin with accuracy. 
Wheeler (1985:71) settled the controversy sur- 
rounding the identity and type status of the skin. 
Wheeler suggested several reasons why earlier ich- 
thyologists (Gunther, 1862; Goode and Bean, 1885a) 
had been confused about capture location and iden- 
tity of the holotype skin of Pleuronectes plagiusa 
Linnaeus. Some confusion surrounding both the ori- 
gin and identity of this species arises from the writ- 
ing on the label, which, as mentioned earlier, is up- 
side down in relation to the fish. Also, it appears that 
Goode and Bean erred in their study of the corre- 
spondence between Garden and Linneaus that re- 
fers to the capture location of the holotype. Wheeler 
stated that Goode and Bean apparently read the 
Garden correspondence of the 1763 consignment in 
which specimen No. 27 was indicated as an exotic, 
not originating in North American waters, and they 
mistakenly interpreted this as reference to the holo- 
type of Pleuronectes plagiusa Linnaeus. However, the 
holotype of Pleuronectes plagiusa (also No. 27) was 
not part of the 1763 consignment, but rather, part of 
the 1761 consignment from Garden. In the 1761 con- 
signment, the holotype skin is listed as “‘Pleuronectes’ 
here called ‘Taper Flounder’ ” and its capture location 
is South Carolina. Wheeler’s study leaves no doubt that 
the specimen of Pleuronectes plagiusa Linnaeus 1766 
represented only by the skin is the holotype for the 
common, shallow- water tonguefish species occurring 
in coastal waters along eastern and Gulf coasts of North 
America, and that the name used by Linnaeus has pri- 
ority over all others proposed for this species. 
My examination of the holotype skin (LS 124) and 
associated documentation for this specimen held at 
the Linnaean Society of London confirms conclusions 
arrived at by Wheeler. All meristic (ca. 86 dorsal-fin 
rays, ca. 74 anal-fin rays) and morphometric features 
(Table 30) of this specimen are within ranges reported 
for those of other S. plagiusa. This specimen has 
ctenoid scales on the ocular side (ca. 86 in longitudi- 
nal series contrary to the 77 reported by Goode and 
Bean), small ctenoid scales extending onto the ocu- 
lar-side finrays, lacks teeth on the ocular-side jaws, 
and has the jaws extending posteriorly only to the 
vertical through the mideye region, as is character- 
istic for other specimens of S. plagiusa. 
Walls (1976:391) suggested placing S. civitatium 
into the synonymy of S. plagiusa because there were 
partial overlaps in meristic features, pigmentation, 
and ecological co-occurrence between these two spe- 
cies. This action is unwarranted because results of 
this and earlier studies (Ginsburg, 1951; Munroe, 
1992) have shown that these two species are distinct 
and are readily distinguishable by a number of fea- 
tures (see “Comparisons” section below). 
Comparisons Symphurus plagiusa is most similar 
in meristic features, body shape, and overall size to 
the widespread, western Atlantic S. diomedeanus and 
the South Atlantic, S. trewavasae. Symphurus 
plagiusa is easily distinguished from S. diomedeanus 
because it lacks the well-developed pupillary oper- 
culum and darkly pigmented spots on posterior dor- 
sal and anal fins characteristic of S. diomedeanus. 
